We continue our discussion of the Court of Appeal's decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.
The former r. 20 provided that a party that was unsuccessful on a summary judgment motion was liable to pay substantial indemnity costs. The 2010 amendments eliminated the presumption of substantial indemnity costs.
The Court of Appeal commented on the costs rule as follows:
 As a result of the amendments to rule 20.06, the onus is now on the party seeking substantial indemnity costs to convince the court that the other side acted unreasonably or in bad faith for the purpose of delay in bringing or responding to a motion for summary judgment. This amendment removes a disincentive to litigants from using Rule 20 by eliminating the presumption that they will face substantial indemnity costs for bringing an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment. However, as the jurisprudence becomes more settled on when it is appropriate to move for summary judgment, the reasonableness of the decision to move for summary judgment or to resist such a motion will be more closely scrutinized by the court in imposing cost orders under rule 20.06.
It seems that this paragraph suggests that courts will revert back to substantial indemnity costs as a body of case law develops. This will be an important consideration when deciding whether to bring a summary judgment motion or not.
- Tara Pollitt